Archive for the ‘Adding value’ Category

The Telegraph Business club has produced a very professional film about a London based firm of accountants: Lubbock Fine.

As I watched this I initially felt sorry for the firm. Everyone on film was very positive but we could have changed the name of the firm to one of dozens of others and almost every single statement and sentiment being expressed would still have held true. Especially the so-called ‘ground breaking’ reorganisation  that resulted in a partner-led one to one service and joined up client services some years ago.

About 3 minutes into the film we learned about some of the firm’s genuinely unique (or at least less common) features – including their expansion into the old eastern block and the fact that over 50% of their clients are based overseas. Also their long term corporate sponsorship and their involvement with other worthy activities.

I was especially taken by Managing Partner Geoff Goodyear’s closing statements (6 minutes in). He talked about the obligations he sees for management to, effectively anticipate changes within the market and the need to “develop some skill sets that may not be available or required at the moment but you anticipate that they will be required in the future”.  I would like to think though that this too is the same as all other decent managing partners.

The example inspired by the film prompts me to highlight a number of points that I have mentioned previously on this blog:

1. Good professionals need to develop a variety of skills. Effective CPD is about more than simply keeping uptodate technically (see yesterday’s post: What does CPD really mean?)
2. Sometimes you don’t need to be different,  you just need to communicate what you do more effectively than your competition (and Lubbock Fine’s film is a great example of a firm doing just that);
3. Some of the things we think make us different are fallacies. Many firms of a similar size and age find it hard to identify REAL points of difference. In practice though this is  probably only an issue in competitive tender situations when comparable firms find it hard to distinguish themselves;
4. Lubbock Fine’s website highlights their specialisms in 6 key client areas.  Such an approach is bound to be more effective than trying to be all things to all types of clients.

I titled this piece – “How different do you need to be?”  What’s your view?  How different do you need to be?

One accountant I know advertises his services using what I think is a pretty good message.

He suggests to recipients of his ad that if they do their own tax return it probably costs them far more than they realise. More in terms of the opportunity cost of their time, the hassle, worry and the prospect of making mistakes.

In other words he’s advocating the reasons to use a professional. And he’s right of course.

On the other hand I noticed the same accountant plans to run his own telemarketing campaign. He may have a good reason for doing this but it seems like a big risk to me.   It seems he’s going to use untrained staff to make calls, using a script/approach that hasn’t been checked by anyone who understands what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to telemarketing.

Perhaps he has had a bad experience with previous attempts using so-called professional telemarketers. Perhaps they did not have the requiste experience, perhaps the offering was wrong, perhaps the follow up was inadequate, perhaps the pre-meeting confirmation with prospects was lacking, perhaps the accountant needs to develop better ‘closing’ skills. There could be all manner of things to tweak or test.

I suspect that the outcome of a DIY approach to telemarketing will probably cost the accountant far more than they realise. More in terms of the opportunity cost of their time, the hassle, worry and the prospect of making mistakes.

Imagine if someone who has had a bad experience with an accountant decided that all accountants were rubbish and decided to attempt to save money and to complete their own tax returns in future…..

AccountingWeb recently ran a series of articles about accountants as business advisers. My contribution as Consultant Practice Editor approached the subject from an unusual angle.

There is already plenty of material that seeks to persuade accountants that they need to become better business advisers, and how they could do this.

My article was titled: Do accountants want to be business advisors?

I felt vindicated in my stance both by the comments added by readers and also by the number of times the article was ‘viewed’ – it was consistently running at about 3 times the number of people reading the related piece about ‘How to be a business adviser’.

Here’s an extract:

————

Although many accountants describe themselves as ‘accountants and business advisers’, I have a suspicion that general practice accountants typically fall into one of four camps when it comes to the provision of business advice to clients:

• It’s a no go area: The accountant’s business experience is limited and perhaps they don’t feel that confident with the idea of providing business advice.
• Personal experience: The accountant is willing and able to share their own experiences of business over the years, perhaps drawn in part from working with other clients.
• What others say: The accountant offers advice based on what they have read in books, magazines and websites and possibly what they recall from their studies and from attending seminars and conferences. However, their level of interest in developing this area of skill is much lower than their desire to keep up to date with technical knowledge.
• A systemised approach: The accountant has bought into a programme that assists them in adopting a structured approach to the provision of business advice and either they actively promote the service to their clients or they shy away from doing so and quit the programme.

If I were still in practice I’d like to think that I would probably move up the scale into the fourth category above. Others are happier lower down the scale, and that’s fine as long as their clients are not expecting anything more. Time and again I hear business owners complaining that their accountants fail to provide business and tax advice; they simply do the books, produce tax returns and tell the client how much tax to pay.

Only a relatively small number of accountants seem to be willing to experiment with the systemised approach, however there is plenty of pressure on the others to do this or to beef up their approach and provide business advice, as well as to learn how they can get paid for doing so.

———

Does this resonate with the readers of my blog?

Telemarketing companies who focus on securing new clients for accountancy businesses tell me that they have never been busier. And there do seem to be a number of such specialist firms – in addition to the more general telemarketing companies that simply work for accountants as and when engaged to do so.

Some telemarketers are more effective than others. But effective or otherwise they are all calling the same corporate clients – probably including some of yours.  They source targets from local trade lists, Companies House data, Commercial list brokers and anywhere else they can trace key information.

The telemarketers generally offer the people they call tax reviews, to reduce tax bills and to provide a more hands on service. The better ones will find out what the client isn’t currently getting from their accountant and then introduce someone who promises to provide such a service.

Now, to be fair, many accountants who use telemarketing companies complain that the target client was only interested in reducing the fees they pay for accountancy services. And, as such, the introduction secured by the telemarketer was a waste of time.  Leaving such situations aside, on other occasions it often isn’t hard for a newcomer to promise a client more than they are currently getting – more attention, more advice, more reasonable fees and so on.

The question then is: How loyal will your better clients be when they are approached? And it is ‘when’ rather than ‘if’.

Accountancy Age has published a profile piece on Peter Hargreaves (Chartered Accountant and founder of Hargreaves Lansdown).  In it he is quite scathing about certain elements of the profession. None more so than the smaller practitioner:

“They’re not doing a good enough job for clients, hence they can’t charge much for the work. A self-defeating spiral, where pressure on fees is rife from client and competitors.‘The problem is they can’t command the fees to do the job properly. The profession has failed singularly to create the right aura for the charging of fees. They’re different to lawyers, who tend to make good businessmen.”

“The problem is the mindset of accountants. They tend to be ‘mean’ with money, which makes them fear charging. ‘Because there are a few doing it for nearly nothing, the others feel they have to compete, but they’ll give you a bad service. A false economy.”

“Those who want accountants don’t know who’s good, and they try and pay very little.”

“Adding value is the key for practices, instead of just preparing accounts from a ‘bunch of invoices’, because ‘if that’s the service they’re offering they don’t service much for it – and if that’s what the client wants they don’t deserve a good accountant”.

“They should say to clients “we want to be in your offices every three months finding out what’s going on, where you make money, to help financially plan your business. If you make a big profit, should you do something before then, perhaps a marketing promotion and spend it this year while we’re profitable” etc. but of course lots of business don’t even know if they’ve made a profit until the accountants produce the accounts.”

Do you find that insulting or does any of what Peter says strike a chord? It’s pretty much the same sort of message as is offered (a little more gently perhaps) by organisations such as AVN, the 2020 group and Probiz. Please tell me what you think by way of comments on this blog.

Over the years I’ve noted that accountants typically devote more time to networking with contacts and strangers (effectively) than they spend helping existing clients.

We’ve all heard the marketing gurus explain that it’s easier to generate additional fees from existing clients than it is to secure new fees from new clients – people with whom we have no prior working relationship. And this makes sense doesn’t it?

All other things being equal, a client who already knows us, likes us and trusts us is more likely to agree to pay for additional services if we take time to find out their needs and problems, than is a stranger.

So why do so many accountants spend so little time ‘networking’ with existing clients? Instead they spend time at marketing meetings and networking with contacts and prospective clients.  Much of this happens outside of the recorded timesheet day of course.

In my experience this happens because of an edict (or simply a perception) that:

• all time spent with client must be recorded on the timesheet; and
• all time charged to clients on timesheets should be recovered.

Quite rightly accountants don’t want to be pressured into billing clients for ‘marketing and networking’ time. Equally the accountant wants to avoid having to justify write-offs or unbillable client time.

Such attitudes are ingrained in the way that many firms of accountants are structured. As a result existing clients feel that no one cares about them, that the clock is always ticking and that they might as well talk to someone else about new issues, problems and challenges.  In effect the accountant misses out on additional fees as he or she misses opportunities to find new ways to help their clients. And the accountant literally wastes time networking with strangers because this is more acceptable within the partnership than spending prospecting time with existing clients (without putting time on the clock).

I suspect this is less of an issue in the case of sole practitioners – unless their timesheet habits have simply been carried over from when they used to work in a larger firm.

Incidentally – when you spend time with clients – it’s best to focus on finding out from them what’s troubling them at the moment rather than trying to sell to them. Find ways in which you could help them and whether they would like that.

What else could you do to reduce the downsides of your timesheet procedures?

Many commentators seem almost contemptuous when talking about accountants who focus on the provision of compliance services.

We’re told that fees are being forced down and that firms that focus only on compliance services face an uncertain future. I’m not sure I agree. If you have an established practice and know your clients well, you are not suddenly going to lose a swathe of clients who all decide to rush off at once.

About the only thing that could cause a speedy dissipation of your client base would be widespread publicity of your incompetence or negligence. Any other changes to your client base will be sufficiently gradual for you to take steps to stem the flow as and when it becomes necessary to do so.

Of course the better prepared and ready you are for such changes, the faster you will be able to adapt and evolve. I do think it will be evolution rather than revolution in this regard.

What will change first and fastest in my view is your ability to win and retain new clients if you and they are focused on compliance services. That means tax returns, bookkeeping and accounts preparation.

The issue will be the alternative ways in which these needs can be satisfied and the time and cost considerations of each option. Are you even aware of the alternatives to a traditional accountant? Again, many accountancy strategists have been predicting this development for years.

I do understand those views and I respect most of the commentators who encourage accountants to plan for the future. Indeed, I agree that’s a wise move, especially for larger firms where there is an inbuilt resistance to dramatic change. However, for most firms of accountants there needs to be something equivalent to a burning platform before there will be a consensus for fundamental changes. At the moment, few partners accept and believe that forthcoming developments will have such a big impact.

What do you think? Please add your comments to this blog post.

The facility to operate as an LLP became a reality in the UK on 6 April 2003. That’s more than 6 years ago. Whilst an increasing number of professional service firms are migrating to an LLP structure the concept it still relatively unknown to most clients.

Why is that?

Given how many presentations that I and others have given at seminars and training sessions for accountants I am sure that most of them understand the key issues, differences and benefits of LLPs.  When I lectured on this subject from around 2001-2007 I used a matrix to highlight the key distinctions as between the 4 principal alternative business structures in the UK:

• a sole trader;
• a conventional partnership (where the individual works with one or more partners in the business);
• a limited liability partnership – LLP – (this provides the individual and their partners with the protection of limited liability, just as with a company); or
• a limited company.
There is also a fifth option – the Limited Partnership (as distinct from LLP) – but this is rarely an attractive or feasible choice for smaller businesses. These old style Limited Partnerships were very restrictive, required at least one partner to have unlimited liability and precluded the limited partners from being involved with the management of the business. The LLP is a very different animal.

So why the apparent reluctance to discuss LLPs with clients?

I think it has much to do with something I never had cause to fully understand or to speak about. But it is a critical issue for accountants in practice. And until and unless they are clear on this issue I entirely understand why they don’t advocate LLP structures as an option when talking with their clients.

Quite simply it’s How do you prepare LLP accounts? Do the accounts prep software packages include an LLP option? Does the accountant fully understand the issues so as to be able to anticipate the accounting issues that are especially relevant? And so on.

In this connection I was inspired to write this piece after noting a CPD seminar “LLP Accounts Preparation” being promoted by Tolley in a flyer that arrived this morning. Sadly the event took place on 11 May and 1 June so it’s too late for now. If the content matches the title then this seminar could be very useful and deserves to be well attended if it is rerun.

If you’re already an advocate of LLPs, are aware of other sources of information on this subject or of accounts prep software that facilitates the preparation of LLP accounts, please add your comments below.

(If you want more on this subject I wrote an outline piece on another blog here: Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) – a better business structure than a limited company?)

Chatting with the managing partner of a top 30 firm recently I was impressed to learn about one of the processes he insists on in his office.  It concerns formal pitches that follow on from the submission of written tender documents. The teams involved in such pitches are required to rehearse in front of the managing partner.  The objective is to ensure that the teams are adequately prepared before they face the prospective client. This is a CRUCIAL stage in any pitch process.

It seems that I last addressed this point in a blog post over two years ago: Preparing tenders when pitching for work. Although I have also written over 40 subsequent posts containing advice on the pitching process.

Anyway, here is an update on my 7 tips:

1 – Remember that the written tender is like a CV. Its job is to get you to the next stage. Too long or detailed and it won’t be read.

2 – Try to ascertain with whom you are competing. Even if you don’t know for certain, you can guess – local competitors, bigger firms, smaller firms, a niche practice, a more general practice. Identify your relative strengths and be ready to refute any perceived weaknesses – from the prospective client’s perspective;

3 – Be consistent when you attend the formal pitch. If what you say you will do is different to what you promised in the written tender you will lose credibility;

4 – If you claim to be a team, be a team. If you’re not already a team admit it. Otherwise when it becomes apparent (and it will) you will lose credibility;

5 – Do not assume that everyone on the selection panel has read your written proposal – some of them may have just scanned it; Some may have been drafted in to add weight to the panel at the last minute. Even if you ask have they all had a chance to read it, be aware that few people will want to publicly admit that they haven’t given it the attention you think it deserved.

6 – Beware that at least one person will challenge something in the written proposal – be prepared;

7 – Plan for the face to face meeting. Anticipate the questions you’ll be asked. Ensure the team will give consistent replies;

It was in the context of this final point that I had an idea last week – when I drafted this blog post. It’s all very well insisting that the team rehearse their pitch and take questions from the managing partner but that won’t always be convenient. Also in a close knit team there may be too much familiarity and a lack of spontaneity. Maybe there’s a role for an independent to attend such rehearsals. I’m not saying I have a lot of time to provide such a service but I’m sure it would be very valuable were I to do so. What are the other options and how effective are they?